What's new

David Locke - Utah Jazz are NOT tanking

We do not have the luxury of an organic tank job like OKC or Houston, which is happening over several seasons so their losing is more organic. We are forcing the issue which makes the tank much harder without waking the giant and getting penalized for it. But tanking it is, nonetheless.
Why not? What has, at any point, prevented the Jazz from doing exactly that?

And why are the Rockets luxurious (and thus preferred, right?) compared to the Jazz?

My point is Hardy was left fielding the likes of Dok and Juzang because of the lack of depth which resulted from the Vando/Beasely/Conley trade.
Well the whole thread (to my understanding) is about Locke's defense and Andy's article, which was mainly that Hardy is now tanking. Because choosing to play Dok over Jones, lack of timeouts etc. etc.
 
The trade deadline move was when we traded our 3rd all-star, Conley. It all goes together. You cannot take them in a vacuum.
Also, that was the tankiest trade of all imo. Because we got basically nothing in return. The rudy and donovan trades were so loaded with players and picks (albeit players that werent expected to be very good) that those trades looked like no brainers to me regardless of tanking.
The royce one was obvious tank. The bogey looked pretty tanky. The trade deadline trade was one of the tankiest trades of all time.
 
This conversation is just semantics.

They are clearly not trying to lose games on purpose. They are, however, managing their roster/rotations to prioritize acquiring and developing future pieces.

Call that whatever you want to.
I call that what the sixers did, what houston is doing and what the spurs are doing. Which I call tanking. I their tanking is working out better than ours but they have the same goals as us. Acquire and develop future pieces. That is what we are doing. And the spurs, rockets, etc are too. Our future pieces that we are developing just happen to be better. Which makes sense considering we literally just trade 3 all stars. Those teams didn't. So they didn't get back in trades as much good stuff as we did since they didn't send away as much good stuff. The goals for all the bottom feeders, and us, are the same though. Acquire and develop future pieces.
 
Well the whole thread (to my understanding) is about Locke's defense and Andy's article, which was mainly that Hardy is now tanking. Because choosing to play Dok over Jones, lack of timeouts etc. etc.

Well Locke referenced Andy's article, but he didn't restrict his argument to only Andy's points, he spoke generally about whether we as an Org. is tanking.
 
Someone help me out here, what's the term for not accepting something when there is overwhelming evidence staring them in the face?
 
You are completely missing the nuance of managing a professional sports team and avoiding league penalties announced specifically to minimize blatant tanking. There are 2 parts to all this, one part is the FO deciding who to keep, the 2nd part is the coaching staff trying to be competitive. For this to work and avoid penalties the FO needs to give the coach the worst possible team without blatantly dropping everyone so the league gets suspicious. The coach, for his part, needs to try to be as competitive as possible, again to avoid the league coming down on them for blatant DNP-CDs geared toward tanking. It is the same thing as the president having no knowledge of the aliens in area 51. Plausible deniability. The coaching staff has plausible deniability as they are still playing to win. But if I replace several of your good chess pieces, like knights and bishops, with pawns, and tell you to go win, that chance of winning goes down. But a good player with pieces that surprise you and still play together well can get some surprising wins, despite being hamstrung by a FO that replaced some of your key pieces. See none of this can be blatant or we get penalized, and that is the last thing we want. The worst thing that could happen would be to drop like a rock in the standings then have the league take all that losing effort away from us and give it to someone else because they determine we are tanking against league rules. It is a balancing act to be sure, but do not let that fool you into thinking the goal here is to try to win a championship or something. The goal is to maximize our assets, and get in the best draft position we can without being penalized for it. So at the trade deadline we were performing way way better than the FO thought we should, with a surprise all-star on the roster, so we move our last "star" player. You better believe there were likely teams with better offers for Conley, he is highly regarded after all, but we traded him for a handful of decidedly non-magic beans. The FO is doing the best they can to replace all our good pieces with pawns, but we have a few pawns that refuse to stay pawns, and a coach that is a pretty damn good chess player, and that is the part that we simply cannot control for, and if we do then we get penalized for blatant tanking. So we manufacture a few minor injuries that take weeks to heal, when it really maybe takes days, and we keep some key people out that way. Fudge a few numbers. Take a few "precautions" to bring back Sexton and Clarkson healthy after their boo-boos heal, which, you know, will take much longer than we thought *wink* *wink* *nudge* *nudge*. And the tank gets put back on track, at least as much as we can. We do not have the luxury of an organic tank job like OKC or Houston, which is happening over several seasons so their losing is more organic. We are forcing the issue which makes the tank much harder without waking the giant and getting penalized for it. But tanking it is, nonetheless.
Good post albeit lot of this has been discussed. Do you also belong in the group who says there is no middle ground between win-now and lose-now?

My claim is this. We traded 2 stars and went into the season with bunch of unknowns and few proven players. The FO said the goal is to evaluate everyone.

Turns out, we identified a few golden nuggets in that pile of sand. That should cause the plan to change, right?

Im emjoying the discussion but I'm typing on my phone and cannot keep up with replying to all of you lol.
 
Someone help me out here, what's the term for not accepting something when there is overwhelming evidence staring them in the face?
Overwhelming evidence? One trade that has 3 other clear objectives (cap, assets, development of core players).

You are in over your head. Leave this to HH like you did those questions before and grab your popcorn.
 
When I raked my leaves I did it well. Didn't work out though. That happens sometimes.
I mean he did it well enough that almost everyone thought we would be one of the worst teams in the league. Vegas had us winning 23.5 games as evidence of how well danny ainge did it. Some rookies and Lauri didn't do it as well as they were expected to.
Btw Vegas has us at 39.5 now if that qualifies as evidence. So thats a 39-43 tank and 10th in lottery odds?
 
Im more than happy to stop this though. My fingerprints are gone from my thumb. We can resume this once we see where we are landing.

My hope is 10th or worse in lottery.. but realistically could be 11th or 12th.

If 8th comes true I will happily congratulate you all and praise the tank I didnt see until it ran over me. You promise to do the same in some scenario... yes?
 
Hopefully we can all at least agree that the most useless thing we have done in 2023 is this discussion.

We will always share this memory.
 
Overwhelming evidence? One trade that has 3 other clear objectives (cap, assets, development of core players).

You are in over your head. Leave this to HH like you did those questions before and grab your popcorn.
Bro, Log wrote an Essay that should convince most logical individuals about what's happening here and you still refuse to see it.

Personally I think you're just arguing for argument's sake.

I dunno maybe you're just bored.
 
Bro, Log wrote an essay that should convince most logical individuals about what's happening here and you still refuse to see it.

Personally I think you're just arguing for argument's sake.

I dunno maybe you're just bored.
Yeah Im sorry coming across trashy.. but I guess we both did that.

I can assure you though, Im nothing if not logical. You see all the stats I dig up for you all the time? Takes time and effort to get them.

Edit: and yes, bored is a good read.
 
Good post albeit lot of this has been discussed. Do you also belong in the group who says there is no middle ground between win-now and lose-now?

My claim is this. We traded 2 stars and went into the season with bunch of unknowns and few proven players. The FO said the goal is to evaluate everyone.

Turns out, we identified a few golden nuggets in that pile of sand. That should cause the plan to change, right?

Im emjoying the discussion but I'm typing on my phone and cannot keep up with replying to all of you lol.
This is a good post. Might have been the plan to tank originally and then the unexpected stuff happened and that killed the tank. Tanking couldn't work once we found the golden nuggets. Kinda what I have been saying. The effort to tank by the front office was there. Just couldn't work cause of the unexpected.
 
Btw Vegas has us at 39.5 now if that qualifies as evidence. So thats a 39-43 tank and 10th in lottery odds?
Yep. The unexpected happened. The wind picked and blew the leaves all over the place. The effort for the tank was there by the front office. Wasn't there by the players and coaches though. If a couple of the spurs players would have popped unexpectedly like Lauri and Kessler then the spurs would be winning way more games too. Our players unexpectedly popped. Their didn't. So they have a tank and we dont despite similar efforts and goals.
 
This is a good post. Might have been the plan to tank originally and then the unexpected stuff happened and that killed the tank. Tanking couldn't work once we found the golden nuggets. Kinda what I have been saying. The effort to tank by the front office was there. Just couldn't work cause of the unexpected.
Well it essentially is what happened. Whether tank was plan A or plan B is debatable. But we wanted to get guys in return who had huge upside.. and if we fell flat then the draft was always there waiting.
 
This is a good post. Might have been the plan to tank originally and then the unexpected stuff happened and that killed the tank. Tanking couldn't work once we found the golden nuggets. Kinda what I have been saying. The effort to tank by the front office was there. Just couldn't work cause of the unexpected.
I also think GMs don't have these master plans they execute with precision. It is very much that they head in a general direction and make the best decisions based on opportunities along the path. So the details of what they thought the plan would be change but the general direction doesn't change unless something earth shattering happens.

If we had kept winning at more of a plus .500 pace after the 10-3 start I think we might actually have been buyers at the deadline. Once the dust had settled and we saw that we are more like a .500 or below team you adjust the course a bit. The plan is to find as much young talent as possible. We thought that would come through the draft this year... and it still might... but we also found Lauri and Kessler so the timeline might speed up by a year or two... we don't know exactly where the additional piece will come from so you boost your odds in one area when the opportunity comes along.
 
Top